Paruresis - Context and Urine Samples

Context and Urine Samples

There can be serious difficulties with workplace drug testing where observed urine samples are insisted upon, if the testing regime does not recognise and cater for the condition. In the UK, employees have a general right not to be unfairly dismissed, and so have an arguable defence if this arises, but this is not the case everywhere.

There is growing evidence to suggest that some drug testing authorities find paruresis a nuisance, and some implement "shy bladder procedures" which pay no more than lip service to the condition, and where there is no evidence that they have conducted any real research into the matter. In the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, the Code of Federal Regulations provides that "An inmate is presumed to be unwilling if the inmate fails to provide a urine sample within the allotted time period. An inmate may rebut this presumption during the disciplinary process." Although U.S. courts have ruled that failure to treat properly diagnosed paruresis might violate prisoner's constitutional rights, the courts have also "routinely rejected suspicious or unsubstantiated attempts to invoke it in defense of failure to complete drug testing," particularly when there were no medical record or physician testimony to back up the claim of paruresis. The International Paruresis Association stresses the importance of medical documentation of one's condition since "he person who is unable to produce a urine sample is presumed guilty in the absence of any evidence." Some prisons have offered the use of a "dry cell" — i.e., a cell with no toilet facilities, but only a container for the prisoner's waste — as an accommodation to inmates who are hindered by paruresis from providing an observed urine sample.

The codes and procedures for drug testing in sports are set by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Enquiries to WADA reveal that their doping codes do not cater for the condition at all, and they say they have never had any reports of problems with it.